Sunday, October 28, 2007

The SNP in the wee pretendy parliament want Scotland to be able to set the voting age... (Currently a reserved matter). Apparently there is strong support within the SNP for a change in voting age.

This begs the question why?

Why should children who are not allowed to drive, smoke, drink alcohol, serve in our armed forces or get credit from a bank be allowed to vote?

They are barely able to tie their own shoelaces, let alone read and write - what hope is there of them being able to form their own opinion on who to vote for?

Perhaps this is a great big political scam - let them vote earlier so they can be indoctrinated earlier, so they don't know any better, and will continue to vote for the appointed party in later life... Assuming apathy doesn't take hold.

Here we are on Greenwich Mean Time again. Which is nice. We invented it. Isn't that great.

Well, yesterday, we were merrily going about our business on BST... What was the need to change the clocks in the first place?

The whiners usually tell us to think of the children, travelling to / from school in the dark. Who gives a fuck - they're all getting driven around in tanks by their overprotective parents anyway!

Auntie Beeb tells us it will take up to three days for us to adjust for this one hour of buggering about with our routines...

Up here in Edinburgh it won't be too long before it will be dark for me going to work, and leaving from work. How does changing the clocks help? Another famous excuse is think of the farmers. Well, after all the time I spent on a mixed / hill farm, daylight and the time on the clock has no resemblance to hours spent in the fields or on the hill.

Come spring, leave the clocks alone. We have the Greenwich Meridian running through this country for a reason.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

I don't feel the need to comment further, and have quoted the letter in full -

Dear Foreign Secretary,

I write to explain why I shall be among thousands of angry and despairing British citizens attending the Referendum Rally in London on Saturday 27th October and why I and others now urge our fellow citizens to overturn hundreds of years of highly developed Parliamentary tradition and demand a national plebiscite on the Reform Treaty.

In refusing us our referendum, you repeatedly say that Britain is a Parliamentary democracy; that the British people have chosen to send representatives to Parliament and to allow themselves to be governed by their decisions; that it is not our national tradition to resort to referenda. (You wish us to overlook the fact that it is your political party which has repeatedly used referenda when you have found it convenient, and you cannot possibly imagine the contempt in which you and your associates are held whenever you dishonestly pray in aid 'tradition'. Your government has done more than any other in recent centuries to destroy our traditions, jeopardising coherent governance and the integrity of the nation itself.)

But you are right - we have not customarily used referenda. However, something so fundamental has changed because of your government's actions that we have no choice but to use the referendum to preserve our democracy and our right to self-determination.

What has changed, Foreign Secretary, is our Parliament. Your government has rendered it incapable of representing the people and acting in the nation's best interest. Your government, Foreign Secretary, is in the process of forcing Parliament itself to betray us. We no longer trust our Government, formed from the members of our Parliament, nor our ancient Parliamentary process, and for the very simplest of reasons.

You and the Prime Minister intend to castrate our Parliament by giving away to the European Union the power which was loaned to you by the British people in order that you could protect and defend us. You intend to pass this power, permanently and beyond recovery, to a foreign power while knowing exactly what you are doing and while lying about it to us even as you do it. You are doing this this not only without our consent but against what you know to be our wishes.

Your government has become a dictatorship. You are following the same pattern as dictators throughout history: you have accepted the acclaim of the people and then turned the power they have given you into the means to ignore and oppress them

Let me briefly specify the chief of the list of crimes against your country which you have committed, and about which you have brazenly lied to us:

You tell us that you have obtained an abiding 'protocol' (you call it a 'red line') to the Reform Treaty which, you say, prevents the future transfer of further 'competences' from Britain to the European Union. At the same time you have agreed to a formula by which -- the British veto abolished with your approval -- the Union may arrogate to itself additional 'competences' without any further treaties.

In other words, this Treaty, the founding document of a new legal entity is, in essence and effect, the final treaty. It enables the European Union to exert indefinitely extensible power over Britain regardless of the wishes of the British people.

There will never be another opportunity for Britain to loosen the chains placed upon us by the European Union.

Your contemptible 'red line' is worthless and you know it, and to offer it to us as though it were some kind of democratic assurance is a gesture of contempt. An insult. You insult us, Foreign Secretary, and we will have our revenge on you for this, too.

You have a peculiarly un-British vision of what one might call 'the future history of Europe' as a socialist analogue of the United States of America. You think its emergence historically inevitable, as a Marxist historian might. In the furtherance of your pan-European socialist vision, you have exceeded your authority. You have ignored the cry of the British people who disagree with you - as you are well aware - and who employ you - which you seem to forget - and you would now sign our nation away into an international organisation with quite awesome and unaccountable power over us. You are destroying the most precious element of Britain's ancient and flexible constitution -- our Parliament. You would reduce to a pathetic, muttering, impotent, regional assembly the people's means of self-government and their ultimate recourse when they seek protection from oppression by native dictators or inimical foreign powers.

You would rob us of all hope of democracy and self determination. Our inherited rights, liberties and protections, gained with our forefathers' blood over centuries, now fail us, because of your actions. You leave us no choice but to find and use whatever new, peaceful means we may, to express both our outrage at your crimes and our determination to prevent you from any further traitorous actions against us.

In previous centuries, Foreign Secretary, we would have hanged you. In these enlightened times, we will not do this, but you should be aware that this is only because we are determined to rescue our constitution, our institutions and our nation from yourself and your associates.

You do well to be very afraid of the outcome of any referendum on the Reform Treaty, and indeed of the general election when it comes. It is obvious, of course, from your refusal to conduct a referendum on the Reform Treaty that you are fully aware of the position as I describe it here, and therefore culpable of the crimes of which I accuse you and the Prime Minister.

If you had any honour in you, you would not have agreed to this Treaty without the approval of the British people by referendum, but no-one could accuse you and the Prime Minister of being honourable men. In view of your traitorous behaviour to date, though, might I ask you to at least have the grace to cease using the words tradition and British when you address us, lest you anger us to the point where we have to reconsider the proper way to deal with traitors?

Thursday, October 11, 2007

The BBC reports that Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is apparently still allowed to be shown in British schools even though it, according to the judge, contains nine serious errors.

The decision to send the film to schools throughout Britain was taken to court by an angered parent who was unhappy about the political bias, factual errors, and as such, showing it to school kids was a breach of the Education Act.

The judge decided that the film could be shown, but that certain guidelines should be followed - teachers should point out controversial or disputed sections.

This begs the question - how well will teachers, many of whom will not have a sound understanding of climate science, or politics, be able to follow these guidelines, and suitably answer questions from the kids in schools?

One can only hope that a complete analysis of the faults in Gore's indoctrination film is given to each and every child who has to suffer watching the film.

Saturday, October 06, 2007

“I have a Che T-shirt and I don’t know why.” is the translation of the title of this post, although most of you know me well enough to know I do not have a Che T shirt.

I was interested to see that the BBC article on Friday about how cool Che is, and Cuntcillor Terry Kelly's post on how great Che is both fail to mention the murders committed by Che Guevara.

I have a book by Alvaro Vargas Llosa, The Che Guevara Myth and the Future of Liberty, which offers a fascinating insight in to many of the darker recesses of Guevara's life - the parts that are not often celebrated in public by the T shirt wearing sycophants.

"In January 1957, as his diary from the Sierra Maestra indicates, Guevara shot Eutimio Guerra because he suspected him of passing on information: “I ended the problem with a .32 caliber pistol, in the right side of his brain.... His belongings were now mine.” Later he shot Aristidio, a peasant who expressed the desire to leave whenever the rebels moved on. While he wondered whether this particular victim “was really guilty enough to deserve death,” he had no qualms about ordering the death of Echevarría, a brother of one of his comrades, because of unspecified crimes: “He had to pay the price.” At other times he would simulate executions without carrying them out, as a method of psychological torture."

Monday, October 01, 2007

It's none of your business who I phone or text, or for how long, or from where.

Fuck off!

652 different bodies are to be given access to logs that telco's have now been ordered to keep regarding a phone's owner, calls made and received, and the location of the phone.

The BBC reports that the Minister for Security and Counter-terrorism said -

"(To say) that all of a sudden anyone and everyone's information is available, that all these authorities somehow have the right to go fishing and snooping, simply isn't the case"

So, tell me then, why are 652 organisations able to access this information, and not just the Peelers and MI5? Oh yes, that would be because you're a nosey bastard, and should be hanged from the nearest lamppost.

There are already methods of encrypting phone conversations and obfuscating the data available to these 652 organisations. But of course, the nosey bastard minister would tell you if you have nothing to hide...